Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):If it's harder to get automatic weapons it's harder to get one and carry it into Times Square and open fire on the literally thousands of civilians milling around. Any more stupid questions with blatantly obvious answers?

They are not obvious. The Gun Ban people want it to appear obvious. They want us to skip over the fact that we had a very oppressive AG ban and it didnt do anything.

The gun ban people want it both ways. They want you to belive that they want to ban a small amount of weapons and it will not impact most people and that it will have a big unfluence on crime.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/15/2013 7:50:00 PM (view original):So you think that the Federal Government should, to use a recent catch phrase, Come for our guns?

Yes. And the idiots yelling and screaming on national television that there will be a revolution if the government comes for their guns are the LAST people I want owning weapons capable of killing lots of people quickly.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2013 5:02:00 PM (view original):If you spent the time and money on planning to do that you could just as easily get yourself the automatic weapon. But no psychotic guy in a suicidal fit would be able to do it spontaneously.

Seems that most of these psychotics do extensive planning.

Seriously, this is stupid. If you want to ban AW, don't use "He could shoot up Times Square" because I can counter with an equally effective way to kill loads of people "legally".

Frankly, the opinion of anyone who thinks the word "confiscation" has a v in it doesn't really matter that much to me. People are acting like that would be a whole new type of government activity. If the government forces people to sell them their assault weapons it's virtually the same as exercising the right of Eminent Domain on real estate. There's mountains of precedent for that. This thing is needed for government purposes, you can't have it anymore, but we will compensate you handsomely for it. Been there, done that.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2013 10:35:00 PM (view original):Frankly, the opinion of anyone who thinks the word "confiscation" has a v in it doesn't really matter that much to me. People are acting like that would be a whole new type of government activity. If the government forces people to sell them their assault weapons it's virtually the same as exercising the right of Eminent Domain on real estate. There's mountains of precedent for that. This thing is needed for government purposes, you can't have it anymore, but we will compensate you handsomely for it. Been there, done that.

I'm hurt that you don't value my opinion due a misspelled word.

If you want every weapon currently in one's hands registered, fine, I'm good with that. If you want to impose ridiculously long prison sentences for having an unregistered firearm, cool, I'm good with that also. If you want government round-ups of specific firearms that are newly illegal, nope, not having it.

Returning legally purchased firearms to the government has no precedent. Anyone who thinks it does is blatantly stupid.